Abstract
When middle school students encounter computer models of science phenomenon in science class, how do they think those computer models work? Computer models operationalize real-world behaviors of selected variables, and can simulate interactions between the modeled elements through programmed instructions. This study explores how middle school students think about the high-level semantic meaning of those instructions, which we term rules. To investigate this aspect of students’ computational thinking, we developed the Computational Modeling Inventory and administered it to 253 7th grade students. The Inventory included three computer models that students interacted with during the assessment. In our sample, 99% of students identified at least one key rule underlying a model, but only 14% identified all key rules; 65% believed that model rules can contradict; and 98% could not distinguish between emergent patterns and behaviors that directly resulted from model rules. Despite these misconceptions, compared to the “typical” questions about the science content alone, questions about model rules elicited deeper science thinking, with 2--10 times more responses including reasoning about scientific mechanisms. These results suggest that incorporating computational thinking instruction into middle school science courses might yield deeper learning and more precise assessments around scientific models.
- 2018. PhET Interactive Simulations. Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/Google Scholar
- Tanya N. Beran, Alejandro Ramirez-Serrano, Roman Kuzyk, Meghann Fior, and Sarah Nugent. 2011. Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child-robot interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 69, 7-8 (2011), 539--550. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth L. Bjork and Robert Bjork. 2009. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society. Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Richart W. Pew, Leatta M. Hough, and James R. Pomerantz (Eds.). Worth Publishers, New York, NY, 55--64.Google Scholar
- Hsin-yi Chang and Marcia C. Linn. 2013. Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50, 7 (2013), 858--886. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21089Google ScholarCross Ref
- The Concord Consortium. 2013. Molecular Workbench. Retrieved from http://mw.concord.org/modeler/showcase/Google Scholar
- Alan Cooper. 1996. Three models of computer software. Technical Communication 43, 3 (1996), 229--236.Google Scholar
- Maria Cutumisu, Cathy Adams, and Chang Lu. 2019. A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology 28, 6 (2019), 651--676. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janet Davis and Samuel A. Rebelsky. 2007. Food-first computer science: Starting the first course right with PB&J. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 372--376. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227440Google Scholar
- Andrea A. DiSessa and Bruce L. Sherin. 2000. Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19 (2000), 385--398.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benedict Du Boulay. 1986. Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 1 (1986), 57--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ilenia Fronza, Nabil El Ioini, and Luis Corral. 2017. Teaching computational thinking using agile software engineering methods. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17, 4 (2017), 1--28. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3055258Google ScholarDigital Library
- David J. Gilmore. 1995. Interface design: Have we got it wrong? In Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction. Knut Nordby, Per Helmerson, David J. Gilmore, and Svein A. Arnesan (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 173--178. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-5041-2896-4_29Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janice D. Gobert and Amy Pallant. 2004. Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13, 1 (2004), 7--22. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019635.70068.6fGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Ashok K. Goel and David A. Joyner. 2014. Computational ideation in scientific discovery: Interactive construction, evaluation and revision of conceptual models. In Proceedings of the Workshops at the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 27--34.Google Scholar
- David Golightly. 1996. Harnessing the interface for domain learning. In Proceedings of the Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’96). ACM, 37--38. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/257089.257121Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42, 38 (2013), 38--43. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Heider and M. Simmel. 1944. An experimental study of social behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 2 (1944), 243--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin Herold. 2016. Technology in Education: An Overview. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/Google Scholar
- Daiki Isayama, Masaki Ishiyama, Raissa Relator, and Koichi Yamazaki. 2016. Computer science education for primary and lower secondary school students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17, 1 (2016), 1--28. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2940331Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Klahr and Sharon Carver. 1988. Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology 20, 3 (1988), 362--404.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph Krajcik and Joi Merritt. 2012. Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom?Science and Children 49, 7 (2012), 10--13.Google Scholar
- Marcia C. Linn and Bat-Sheva Eylon. 2011. Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. Routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=IWmpAgAAQBAJGoogle Scholar
- Marcia C. Linn, H. S. Lee, R. Tinker, F. Husic, and J. L. Chiu. 2006. Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313, 5790 (2006), 1049--1050. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131408Google Scholar
- Ou Lydia Liu, Hee Sun Lee, Carolyn Hofstetter, and Marcia C. Linn. 2008. Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment 13, 1 (2008), 33--55. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yanjin Long and Vincent Aleven. 2017. Educational game and intelligent tutoring system: A classroom study and comparative design analysis. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 24, 3 (2017), 1--27. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3057889Google ScholarDigital Library
- Loucas T. Louca and Zacharias C. Zacharia. 2012. Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review 54, 4 (2012), 471--492. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748Google ScholarCross Ref
- Betti Marenko. 2014. Neo-animism and design. Design and Culture 6, 2 (2014), 219--242. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.2752/175470814x14031924627185Google ScholarCross Ref
- Santosh Mathan and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2005. Fostering the intelligent novice: Learning from errors with metacognitive tutoring. Educational Psychologist 40, 4 (Dec. 2005), 257--265. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kevin W. McElhaney, Hsin-Yi Chang, Jennifer L. Chiu, and Marcia C. Linn. 2014. Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education 51, 1 (2014), 49--85. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitchell J. Nathan. 1998. Knowledge and situational feedback in a learning environment for algebra story problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments 5, 1 (1998), 135--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitchell J. Nathan, Martha W. Alibali, Kate Masarik, Ana C. Stephens, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2010. Enhancing middle school students’ representational fluency: A classroom-based study. WCER Working Paper No. 2010-9. Retrieved from https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2010_09.pdfGoogle Scholar
- NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Technical Report. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.17226/18290Google Scholar
- Donald A. Norman. 1990. The Design of Everyday Things. The MIT Press, London, England.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amy Pallant and Hee Sun Lee. 2015. Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24, 2-3 (2015), 378--395. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roy D. Pea. 1986. Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 1 (1986), 25--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edys S. Quellmalz, Michael J. Timms, Matt D. Silberglitt, and Barbara C. Buckley. 2012. Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 3 (2012), 363--393. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noel Rappin, Mark Guzdial, Matthew Realff, and Pete Ludovice. 1997. Balancing usability and learning in an interface. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97). 479--486. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258995Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexander Repenning, David C. Webb, Kyu Han Koh, Hilarie Nickerson, Susan B. Miller, Catharine Brand, Ian Her Many Horses, Ashok Basawapatna, Fred Gluck, Ryan Grover, Kris Gutiérrez, and Nadia Repenning. 2015. Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 15, 2 (2015), 1--31. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeremy Roschelle. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda. J. H Falk and L. D Dierking (Eds.). American Association of Museums, Washington, DC, 37--51.Google Scholar
- Marco Rozendaal. 2016. Objects with intent: A new paradigm for interaction design. Interactions 23, 3 (2016), 62--65.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rosemary S. Russ, Janet E. Coffey, David Hammer, and Paul Hutchison. 2009. Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Education 93, 5 (2009), 875--891. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20320Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kihyun Ryoo and Marcia C. Linn. 2012. Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students’ understanding of energy in photosynthesis?Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 2 (2012), 218--243. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21003Google Scholar
- Brian J. Scholl and Patrice D. Tremoulet. 2000. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 8 (2000), 299--309. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01506-0Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christina V. Schwarz, Brian J. Reiser, Elizabeth A. Davis, Lisa Kenyon, Andres Acher, David Fortus, Yael Shwartz, Barbara Hug, and Joe Krajcik. 2009. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, 6 (2009), 632--654. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christina V. Schwarz and Barbara Y. White. 2005. Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction 23, 2 (2005), 165--205.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pratim Sengupta and Amy Voss Farris. 2012. Learning kinematics in elementary grades using agent-based computational modeling. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’12). 78--87. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307106Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pratim Sengupta, John S. Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18, 2 (2013), 351--380. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-xGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Pratim Sengupta, Amy Voss Farris, and Mason Wright. 2013. From agents to continuous change via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 17, 1-2 (2013), 23--42. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-012-9190-9Google Scholar
- Juha Sorva. 2013. Notional machines and introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 2 (2013). DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2483710.2483713Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 4 (1994), 295--312. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kurt VanLehn, Greg Chung, Sachin Grover, Ayesha Madni, and Jon Wetzel. 2016. Learning science by constructing models: Can dragoon increase learning without increasing the time required?International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26, 4 (2016), 1033--1068. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0093-5Google Scholar
- Jonathan M. Vitale, Elizabeth Mcbride, and Marcia C. Linn. 2016. Distinguishing complex ideas about climate change: knowledge integration vs. specific guidance. International Journal of Science Education 38, 9 (2016), 1548--1569. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198969Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kevin P. Waterman, Lynn Goldsmith, and Marian Pasquale. 2020. Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum: An examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 29, 1 (2020), 53--64. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-yGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25, 1 (2016), 127--147. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Weiser. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 265, 3 (1991), 94--105. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/24938718Google ScholarDigital Library
- Astrid Weiss, Daniela Wurhofer, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2009. “I love this dog” - Children’s emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 3 (2009), 243--248. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0024-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eliane Stampfer Wiese, Hannah Gogel, Libby F. Gerard, Jonathan M. Vitale, and Marcia C. Linn. 2017. Probing Middle-School Students’ Understanding of Computer Models. Presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
- Uri Wilensky and Kenneth Reisman. 2006. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories -- an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction 24, 2 (2006), 171--209. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michelle H. Wilkerson-Jerde, Brian E. Gravel, and Christopher A. Macrander. 2015. Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24, 2-3 (2015), 396--415. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eben B. Witherspoon, Ross M. Higashi, Christian D. Schunn, Emily C. Baehr, and Robin Shoop. 2017. Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 18, 1 (2017), 1--20. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- “It Must Include Rules”: Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking with Computer Models in Science
Recommendations
Designing a Middle School Science Curriculum that Integrates Computational Thinking and Sensor Technology
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationThis experience report describes two iterations of a curriculum development process in which middle school teachers worked with our research team to collaboratively design and enact instructional units where students used sensors to investigate ...
Developing Student's Computational Thinking through Agent-Based Modeling in Secondary Education
ICER '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education ResearchComputational thinking (CT) is emerging as an important theme in computer science and high school education. However, research is needed to develop pedagogies for introducing students to CT. This research study examines the possible synergistic effect ...
Examination of allostasis and online laboratory simulations in a middle school science classroom
We examine the role of allostatic load on student outcomes in a middle school classroom.The use of online laboratory simulations mitigates the effects of allostatic load.A holistic view of learning is necessary when using online laboratory simulations. ...
Comments